I have. But I've settled for buying them ps3 games. If one of them could keep his ass out of trouble for two friggin weeks, maybe I'd buy him that ps4.

Stop clinging to stupid tradition. The Neo or Scorpio have nothing to do with a regular console cycle. It will have literally no negative impact on Sony or Microsoft even if they released their console at 1000 bucks at launch. In contrary, the more expensive the Neo is at launch the more money Sony will make.

Choice is always great and no one is forced to upgrade. Look how much money and prestige Samsung and Apple gain with their stupidly overpriced flagships.

People are just too short sighted. The difference between a good console and a great one is about the cost of two to four games, but people would rather settle for the crappy piece of hardware that they're hoping to get years of use out of because it's a tad cheaper.

If I sound bitter, it's because I am lol, we've just had the weakest generation of hardware yet.

M$ did try a new pricing model last gen. Remember they let you finance a console but you had to subscribe to Xbox Live? What if they (and Sony) bring that back? You can get a console for $199 but you have to subscribe to PSN/XBL for two years?

Yeah I think so.

People don't realize inflation is a thing, the NES which launched in 1986 would be over $400 for the standard SKU inflation adjusted.

Expecting hardware to stay $200-$300 forever is simply not realistic, you can't buy a bag of chips or a Pepsi or a Big Mac for the same price today as you could in 1986, why do you expect video game consoles to stay the same price?

As a general rule; probably not, the cost advantage of console gaming will wear thin then, especially when you factor in paid online play and more expensive games. It'll make consoles a less attractive option, but I think there will always be cheaper SKU's available, there has to be an alternative.

To be honest I missed that. I suppose it might help some but consoles have always sold as they're inexpensive and simple. I think those two qualities are what preclude consoles from really pushing the envelope for the most part.

Oh, believe me, I know! http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=112729&page=1

I don't know, all I can say is, I surely won't buy a system for that price.

In short, the answer lies in the marketing.

You can buy a high end smartphone for $399, with the bare minimum storage (non expandable). The manufacturer is happy to sell the same phone with more internal storage at an inflated price. Apple adds $200 to the price to "upgrade" from 16GB of barely usable storage to 128GB. This does not change the bare minimum SKU, it simply allows the manufacturer and retailers who sell the device to say the phone costs $399.

During the 7th generation, both MS and SCE attempted a similar SKU structuring by the third hardware refresh, effectively stripping the specs (in this case, the HDD) in the interest of selling a bare minimum MSRP SKU. It's arguable that both companies did the same thing with the initial SKUs with the Xbox 360 Core and PS3 20GB, both of which were limited in use due to the cost cut packages in the interest of providing those lower tier entry priced SKUs.

What's interesting about the 8th gen is that only Nintendo offered a stripped down SKU initially, whereas MS tethered Kinect to the XBO with a single $500 SKU. SCE offered a single $400 SKU and the rest is history.

You can sell a $500 console; there is a market for one, provided what the consumer is getting for that price is perceived to provide a cost/yield benefit, typically in the form of specs which should be directly tied to real world performance. However, the market for $500 consoles is much smaller than the market for $400 consoles, meaning the manufacturer would be wiser in offering that $400 option, without hobbling the performance.

I'm more of the notion that manufacturers simply maintain the same price while taking advantage of current advances in processing and memory capabilities, rather than continuing to manufacture the same dated ICs using cheaper manufacturing processes and passing a portion of the savings on to the consumer.

It makes less sense financially to sell that same updated hardware at a significantly higher price as this automatically shrinks the potential consumer base, unless the manufacturer is deliberately attempting to sell a smaller niche product, typically by marketing it as a "premium" product.